Discovery Life v Mabaso (J 1155/2020) [2022] ZALCJHB 128 (26 May 2022)

Discovery Life v Mabaso (J 1155/2020) [2022] ZALCJHB 128 (26 May 2022)

The court found that the order was granted in error because Discovery Life had filed opposition documents, but the matter was enrolled as unopposed without notice to Discovery. The court was unaware of the opposition at the time of granting the default order. Had the court been aware, it would have removed the matter from the unopposed roll and directed it to be heard as an opposed application. Therefore, the requirements for rescission were satisfied. Regarding costs, the court exercised its discretion under section 162 of the LRA and determined that each party should bear its own costs, as the respondent acted without mala fides and in ignorance of the applicable principles.

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 128
Parties
Applicant: Discovery Life; Respondent: Aaron Mabaso
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2022
Case Number
J 1155/2020
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Order
Outcome
The application for rescission is granted; the default order of 26 November 2020 is rescinded.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Costs in Labour Court, Section 158 1 C Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Costs in Labour Court Section 158 1 C Application

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Discovery Life

Applicant

Aaron Mabaso

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default order granted on 26 November 2020 should be rescinded.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was absent due to an error and whether the court was unaware of opposition.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order was granted in error because Discovery Life had filed opposition documents, but the matter was enrolled as unopposed without notice to Discovery. The court was unaware of the opposition at the time of granting the default order. Had the court been aware, it would have removed the matter from the unopposed roll and directed it to be heard as an opposed application. Therefore, the requirements for rescission were satisfied. Regarding costs, the court exercised its discretion under section 162 of the LRA and determined that each party should bear its own costs, as the respondent acted without mala fides and in ignorance of the applicable principles.

Court Disposition

The application for rescission is granted; the default order of 26 November 2020 is rescinded.

Orders

  • The order granted by Moshoana J on 26 November 2020 under case number J1155/20 is rescinded.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs.